Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday September 13, 2010 @12:53PM
from the attention-whore-of-babylon dept.

Daehenoc writes "Thanks to a lawyer in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, we now know that the Bible makes a better smoke than the Koran. From the article: 'In the clip, titled "Bible or Koran - which burns best?", the professed atheist says burning religious books is no big deal and people need to get over it. "It's just a f---ing book," he says. "Who cares? It's your beliefs that matter. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a book, you're taking life way too seriously."'

"He defended the stunt, saying basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, should not be threatened simply because someone might be offended."

Yet another person doesn't understand freedom of speech.

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

Do I think he should be fired? No. What he did was thoughtless and inconsiderate, but it wasn't illegal and it wasn't on behalf of the school.

I do not know how it works in the USA, but even in countries that have general freedom and specifically freedom of speech that is not necessarily true.

In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.But of course everyone always just quotes the first part and i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech.

Canada dose NOT have freedom of speech.
If the government can come in and shut you up because "Someone" was offended. You do NOT have freedom of speech.
I can understand how Canadians may feel better about themselves by saying they have freedom of speech, but that dose not make it so.

What happens is, you offend someone, they sue you, or call the police, and then you are in court (the physical manifestation of the government) defending yourself. And if the charge is true, you are punished for it. Not for speech, but for its effects, however intangible.

And the entire time that your case is in the hands of the government, you may be subject to a gag order preventing you from speaking to anyone but your lawyer and the judge abo

Sometimes, it's a good idea to read someone's complete post before replying...

Ooh, what a burn! I tried that, though, and this bit threw me for a loop...

"i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech."

Dang, tough one to untangle. I guess he's saying that Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, after all? If wisnoskij's point is that Canadians have freedom of speech (except not) then I think Dishevel is quite right to say that this isn't freedom of speech at all...

Saying that Canada has freedom of speech "as long as we do not offend anyone." is a gross inaccuracy in my opinion. What the law actually states is that our freedom of speech is (emphasis mine) "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That does not mean "offending someone" is against the law. It means that if someone offends you with something, you must prove in a court of law that they have overstepped the expected bounds

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

Nice idea. But if you look into the history of--just for the sake of argument--Nazi Germany, you'll find that especially in the early days the government itself rarely interfered or intervened against dissenters. If you tried to exercise your freedom of speech, you would simply have a squad of SA goons or

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

He is an atheist. To an atheist, the Quran and the Bible are not holy and opposition to them is a moral duty because of the harm they have caused. Therefore, his actions are not just free speech, they are protected religious expression, making discrimination against him based on his actions illegal (Aus

Yeah really good point.
Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot. While I do agree with him that people should relax when it comes to burning books (in fact, usually those that are burning books/flags/whatever have nothing constructive to say and are basically just real-life trolls who should be ignored), him pointing it out does not help. It doesn't change a thing and it's only like prea

Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot.

Actually, yeah. It kind of does. I mean, you can believe anything you want about the message enshrined in a holy book, but any people who get tied in a knot over the physical disposition of qurans or flags (I don't know anyone who cares about burnt bibles) are guilty of practicing a form of Idolotry even the Quran and the Bible themselves specifically forbid.

These books are simply objects, no more, no less. More importantly, if I burn a holy book, I'm burning my own property. I'm not burning down your house

I hope they do fire him and he sues their ass off for wrongful dismissal. The person in question should be able to express his freedom of speech, and freedom of religious choice too. Just because some believe in God etc, doesn't mean that all others must do so as well. Freedom entails others to say "No, I do not believe in [replace with deity of choice]". If others don't like this, tough shit, perhaps they should have some respect for others freedoms and not try and shove their views down everyone else?

From your link: "Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee."
Political discrimination is pretty much always unlawful. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful in many states.

It's always been the symbolism. I could wipe my ass with either book, and someone would get offended. It's just paper...
The thing is, if people are willing to believe in the whacked out nonsense contained in either book, why would anyone ever believe people wouldn't get pissed about burning them?

take that green pieces of paper and burn it. Is just a f---in piece of paper, who cares? Is your belief that have a value what matters. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a bunch of money, you're taking life way too seriously.

You are turning things upside down. People are upset, that he is burning his own personal copy of the Bible/Koran and that is just silly. If he burned another persons copy of the Koran/Bible, then by all means get upset.

If you decide to burn your own money, it would not make me upset. Not the slightest. Money are just I-Owe-Yours from the government. When you burn money, you resolve the government of it's obligation. So go burn all your own money, it will just mean I have to pay a tiny bit less in taxes.

Actually, In Australia non-coin money is made of plastic, burning and smoking it would be considerably more toxic than burning books, and people will get quite upset about it.
They are also mostly non-green, except for the hundred-dollar bill.

Not really the same. I have no emotional attachment to a $100 bill. If it's yours, burn it and I won't protest. I can take that $100 to a store and exchange it for lots of things that may mean more to me, or may feed my children. If I take a load of (insert your preferred religious text here) to Target, I'm not going to be able to exchange it for pampers.
Also, you burn a pile of money that you earned, that's your business. If I burn a copy of MY (insert your preferred religious text here), it tends to bec

Had to think for a minute, maybe even retract my first reply to the parent of your reply, but... I can't remember; isn't there some federal statute about the only people who can burn money is the federal mint? Otherwise, I believe, it's illegal as far as destruction of federal property (ie, no, we don't own the script, we merely use it under the conditions imposed by the real owner - the US Treasury).

Like I said, "I won't protest". I'm not going to speak for the US govt.

It appears you're correct on the legality of doing so though:

"this is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, which says that “whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such

Ya, thot so. Vague memory of being told, "That's illegal," when someone burnt a bill in protest or for a magic act or something.

Thanks for not taking my mention as an argument against your stance, as I also do not speak for the US govt (tho as a citizen of the US, I can - the whole of the people thing).

Plus, I feel better about my other reply to the parent, er, maybe gp, post when I said that burning money is as "wrong" as burning a book - both only have value that we assign to them, rather than an intrinsi

A bible (or any of the other books for the other religions) have some use. Could be a first step for getting eternal life, gives you a community, could give some respect, all inside the people that believes in its value. And money can lose value pretty fast, like in Zimbabwe.

Burning a bible (or any of the other books for the other religions) have some use. Could be a first step for getting a life, gives you a community, could give some respect, all inside the people that understand its value. And bibles lose their value pretty fast, like when you can get them for free by just calling a phone number.

A more common use for Bibles and Qurans is for people to get money and power quickly by becoming preachers. Most commonly, this is then accomplished by preaching hatred and discrimination against a bunch of common minorities: atheists, homosexuals, "fornicators". And these people have their hate speech protected under freedom of religion and non-discrimination clauses.

There was a ridiculous piece in the UK newspaper the Guardian which tried to compare that American preacher burning copies of the Koran he had bought to Hitler burning selected 'banned' books nationwide. Burning your own books is not a problem, burning other people's is.

There is nothing sinister about burning books, in fact they are a perfect source of fuel. From plagues to depressions, books have been burned through necessity. With modern printing on demand, the symbolism is now almost irrelevant as you ca

Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.
He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.

He's right in that "it's just a book.. get over it". However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious. If he wants to burn books because it makes him feel good, that's fine. It's doing it with the sole purpose of mocking others that creates an issue. I wouldn't do that to a Muslim's Koran, despite how much I disagree with them.

I think the vast majority of Christians feel this way, myself included. However with any group, religious or otherwise, a few people can skew the perception of the whole group and no matter what you or I say, people will believe whatever they want to believe.

Based on polls about religious belief, it's clear that the vast majority of "Christians" (at least in the US and Europe) aren't Christians at all, they believe some tolerant New Age feel-good religion that has little to do with Christianity. (Islam seems to be the same way, but there is less data.) That's nice as far as it goes, and atheists generally don't have a problem with those kinds of pseudo-Christians.

But the religions and beliefs that the terms "Christianity" and "Islam" actually represent, are n

There's no way to be "christian" and be "logical" at the same time. Christianity (and most other religions) by definition requires you to suspend logic and believe in the outdated mythology written by unwashed, barely literate savages approximately 1900 years ago (50 years _after_ the death of Christ), and since then creatively rewritten a few times to suit head honchos of the various sects. You believe in something you, again by definition, can't observe or confirm the existence of. That pretty much destroys your claim at possessing "logic".

This is the same attitude that you're criticizing. I say "I believe this, but you can believe what you want", and all you can say is "you're illogical and wrong". This makes you no better than the Christians who lack logic and have no idea what they're talking about. They make the Christians who do know what they're talking about look bad, just like you make the "scientific origin" crowd look bad. I'm sure that some of them are genuinely seeking truth, but all you're doing is throwing unsupported blabber

I call that passive aggression. He had a point, you know, regarding logic and unfounded beliefs. Unfortunately, no one can actually "win" the argument as there is no way to prove one side or the other (you can't prove the existence of fairies and I can't disprove their existence either). I guess what it boils down to is that you also have decided your answer already and are sticking to it, just like him.

Um, no. It is a fundamental rule of science to not take unobservable events and entities as truth. Religion is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis, with VERY long odds against it. And odds are getting slimmer by the day as science explains the world in greater detail, and uncovers the facts that directly contradict religious doctrines.

His axiom is self-contradictory. He believes in one god, rejecting, without evidence the existence of all others, as well as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, unicorns and so on. You can't have it piecemeal. If your axiom is to believe the fundamentally unobservable, then unicorns should exist as well.

Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.

He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.

Well, sure, but that's not really the point.

An act like burning someone's holy book, by itself, is meaningless. You make a fire, keep yourself warm, or whatever. But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.

I think it's a reprehensible way to act. Americans should be better than this. Christians should be better than this. So hel

But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.

While I couldn't easily find a definition for the idiom "hate rally", I'm fairly certain that a primary ingredient would be a demonstration of Hate. Am I wrong?

You might make the argument that the southern minister who started this controversy was planning to hold a "hate rally", I won't speak to that. But this article is about Australian Lawyer Alex Stewart posting a video where he personally burns both a Quran and a Bible, with no obvious agenda of hate whatsoever. Merely to demonstrate that these books a

However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious.

And why do you hope that? To many atheists, Christianity and Islam are intrinsically morally wrong and evil and therefore to be opposed. One aspect of that is expressing that the "holy" books are neither true nor deserve special reverence. Of course, such a burning is supposed to get your attention and it is supposed to make you think.

What do atheists hold as "objects of reverence"? (This isn't meant as a rebuttal, but is asked simply out of curiosity.) I am under the assumption (misunderstanding?) that because atheists don't believe in a higher being, they view everything on the same material plane. "To desecrate" means to make common things that are holy or sacred. What is holy without a god? What is sacred without a higher being to impart some meaning of sanctity?
(Note that I'm not saying that atheists have no *beliefs*. I'm n

I am under the assumption (misunderstanding?) that because atheists don't believe in a higher being, they view everything on the same material plane.

Well, not all atheists are materialists or reductionists. Most consider that some things have more value than other things, normally based upon at least utilitarian principles if not sentimentality. For example, most atheists become upset when Christians [wikipedia.org] or Muslims [wikipedia.org] burn valuable objects like, say, members of their family.

The point is that the following pattern is being followed in today's religious politics:

* Person or Small Group A in culture B commits act C that culture D finds sacrilegious.
* Culture B

It's sensible people in general that seem extinct.
But here's my theory: there are a lot of closeted smart people from all walks of life. Yet, it is so unpopular to be smart, informed, let alone be an intellectual, most people refrain from coming out and act dumb. We need equal rights for people who use their brains.

He's right in that "it's just a book.. get over it". However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious. If he wants to burn books because it makes him feel good, that's fine. It's doing it with the sole purpose of mocking others that creates an issue. I wouldn't do that to a Muslim's Koran, despite how much I disagree with them.

While I agree with you in principle, I think that the act of burning holy books is usually intended in a very religiously intolerant light, if not as an incitement to violence. Here in South Africa, a court interdict was issued recently against a Muslim cleric who was going to burn Bibles in response to the chap in the States a while ago, which I agree with, personally, no-one should make public displays about how much they hate someone else's religion (or race or whatever else for that matter).

While I agree with you in principle, I think that the act of burning holy books is usually intended in a very religiously intolerant light, if not as an incitement to violence. Here in South Africa, a court interdict was issued recently against a Muslim cleric who was going to burn Bibles in response to the chap in the States a while ago, which I agree with, personally, no-one should make public displays about how much they hate someone else's religion (or race or whatever else for that matter).

Desecrating holy objects has already been thoroughly studied under the auspices of Flag Desecration [wikipedia.org]. Normally citizens of a country who burn their own flag in protest are not expressing hatred for their country, but unrest against the established government and policies of the country and with unquestioning adherence to an ideal that is not being lived up to.

It is a sign that patriotism has lost sight of common sense when allegience to a flag is considered more important than the quality of life of it's cit

Protest against what? Why would you need to burn Qurans or Bibles to protest?

You normally protest in order to draw attention to a certain situation which you find unacceptable, in order to influence public opinion, or change government policy.

Since Government policy seems pretty level headed about the matter (people aren't being arrested for posting these videos, for example) in this case it's pretty clear we are talking about swaying public opinion.

So, protest against what? Well, how about the cultural climate where our freedom of speech is being thrown under the bus to placate a b

If we want ultimately to be able to co-exist in a civil manner, then the civility needs to start with someone, the uncivilised behaviour needs to start somewhere.

Second sentence has the wrong number of negatives in it, I'm going to assume you meant "The *civilized behavior needs to start somewhere" or "The uncivilized behavior needs to end somewhere".

In either case, I agree. Someone needs to be the better man, am I right? So how about we start with: I pledge not to hijack any planes, bomb any train stations, or make any death threats of any kind. Fair enough? I don't seek to end the lives, or even the livelihoods, of any other law abiding peoples of any nation. I re

First off, it's poor taste to burn books in general. More importantly is the context. This guy is just a narrow-minded jerk. I guess if it doesn't upset HIM, it's no big deal? The problem for me is that most burning of religious texts is done out of hate and spite. They are done to threaten a religious group and demonstrate a hostility that goes beyond what I find acceptable.

OMG, why must you be so intolerant? You just hate all atheists and spread your bigotry over the internet, don't you? I hope your employers figure out who you are and fire you and if some fundamentalist atheists hunt you down and murder you then your family can have my trite condolences.. I mean I would never condone such behavior, nod wink, but you really would do better watching what you say with the crazies out there. Not that I support them of course, I'm just sayin'. Quit with the hate-mongering.

Hello, there. Well, the article and the thread are about the Australian not the priest, so I am for one focusing there.

The priest and the lawyer are demonstrating intolerance. If I am intolerant of their narrow-mindedness...well I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing I should be fired and murdered.

Except that the lawyer was none more than intolerant of the narrow-mindedness of populist Islam. I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing that he should get fired (as has happend) and murdered (as has been threatened).

On a side note, I used to have a friend who hated when people threw her stuffed animals on the floor.

For me, the word "Her" stuffed animals is a hugely important issue, here. Perhaps she anthropomorphs these dolls and by doing this you are abusing her (admittedly imagina

Before the printing press, the duplication of data was a tedious, expensive and error-prone process. Burning books represented the destruction of knowledge. Countless volumes of data have been lost to all time at the hand of ancient book burnings. Today, we look back on every book burning as an act of ignorance. While I agree with the bulk of the comments that state, "who cares, it's just a book", I still feel upset when I see people exercising their right to destroy their own property (and whatever per

I think you are in the minority. Most of us think it is no big deal that he thinks it is no big deal. He will probably think that it is no big deal that you do think it is a big deal about him thinking it is no big deal. And you are just going to have to deal with that.

The ten commandments, and similar passages in the koran, specifically prohibit the worship of material things via the "Thou Shall Not Make False Idols" commandment. Worshiping the bible, or the crucifix or the koran is not only stupid, its hypocritical by its own standards.

The ten commandments, and similar passages in the koran, specifically prohibit the worship of material things via the "Thou Shall Not Make False Idols" commandment. Worshiping the bible, or the crucifix or the koran is not only stupid, its hypocritical by its own standards.

What's your point? Was there something here about worshipping the various holy books?

The relevant issue about burning someone's holy book isn't that you've removed one copy of the book from the world, it isn't (really) that you've destroyed something that is, by their standards, holy. It is a metaphor. It is a virtual slap in the face, an expression of the deepest loathing and utter disrespect for everything they believe in. It's like talking trash about someone's mom.

It is a metaphor. It is a virtual slap in the face, an expression of the deepest loathing and utter disrespect for everything they believe in. It's like talking trash about someone's mom.

So what? "Deepest loathing and utter disrespect" is what prominent Christians and Muslims express for atheists.

Doesn't make it right.

I don't think there's a conflict with the idolatry rules, either. I always interpreted those rules to mean nothing else should come ahead of one's commitment to god. I don't agree with the idea that many people seem to have, that the rules of their faith should apply to everyone else, too... But that doesn't mean it's OK to be an asshole, either.

To me there's a much more significant conflict, which is that this kind of behavior is (as I see it) against Jesus's teachings. Love thy n

To me there's a much more significant conflict, which is that this kind of behavior is (as I see it) against Jesus's teachings. Love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

One of the basic tenets of mainstream Christianity is that the only way to salvation is to believe in Jesus; in different words, anybody who doesn't will be condemned to horrendous suffering for all eternity. How much more hateful and intolerant can a religious message get than that?

I don't think there's a conflict with the idolatry rules, either. I always interpreted those rules to mean nothing else should come ahead of one's commitment to god.

Hey, I'm on board with that interpretation. However "one's commitment to god(sic)" is not in any way lessened when someone else burns a Quran. You've still got your Quran, and it's really not your right to tell me how to dispose of mine, up to and beyond burning it in protest. The only people who care are those who revere the text as a holy artifact. They see it either as a symbol of holiness, or a symbol of their virtual face being slapped. Same difference.

"What weights more: the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita? Well worldy scholars and scientists have known for quite some time that the Bible outweighs the Bhagavad-Gita here by a pound to a pound and a half sometimes, outweighs the Talmud sometimes by three to four pounds, outweighs that mighty Koran sometimes by five to ten pounds. You think about that."
-Mark

Someone in the comments here said that bibles were printed on 'cheapy' paper. Actually that bible stock is not cheaper than other kinds of paper. Because paper costs are very much decided by weight a thin stock like that used in a bible might seem to be cheaper but considering the book itself is thousands of pages long it is relative. Also that bible stock is usually very strong despite its thinness compared to other forms of paper because bibles are generally seen as books which must last a long time and p

While working at a major research institute library, the head librarian asked a few of us whether we could burn a book. Any book, for example some Office 95 manual that nobody has checked out since way into the last millennium. There were a few muffled answers, which turned into more of a philosophical question: Would you willingly destroy knowledge (or art, as with the stories of religions), knowing that on one side it would make space for new books which we would otherwise have to pass up, and on the othe

In a few week he'll be in the news again. It'll be about discovery of his beheaded body.
Yeah, unfortunatelly even in 21th century there are people who believe in tales and they think these tales are more valuable than human's life.

What if the Bible had half the pages missing ? What if it was printed in Chinese, or in Braille ? What if it was a Chinese Braille Bible with half the pages missing ? At what point does the symbolic value of the book break down into stupid bullshit ?